Do the railways need a separate police force

[Hellfire]

There seems to be increasing pressure to merge police forces in order to cut administrative costs. Scotland is the latest example of that.

In 2006 Ken Livingston, when he was Mayor of London, proposed that the BTP in the capital should be merged with the Met to have one single police force for London, outside the square mile.

What do members feel is the advantage of maintaing a completely separate police force for the railways and what would be lost if that policing was transferred to the various local forces in which the railway runs?

 

[Silv1983]

I don't think they "need" to be seperate per se - but it is far better for the railways that they are presently. The BTP works because of its commitment to railway-crime and incidents: and thus they aren't distracted by the humdrum of daily policing commitments which occupy home office forces. This means that when something occurs on the railways - be it a mugging, a fight on a train or a suicide - there are always resources available to attend. If the BTP were amalgamated with home office forces - the officers' would quickly de-skill and their effectiveness lost, and incidents on the railways would join "the queue" like most things territorial and not get dealt with within the golden hour.

 

[The Ham]

The other advantage of the BTP is that they don't have to worry quite so much about going onto another forces area as their patch is clearly defined.

Imafine what would happen if an incendent happened on a train just inside one police force area, but the train was heading out of that area and into another. Who would attend? would the second police force prioritise the incident as it wouldn't count to their clean up rates, etc..

 

[TDK]

There seems to be increasing pressure to merge police forces in order to cut administrative costs. Scotland is the latest example of that.

In 2006 Ken Livingston, when he was Mayor of London, proposed that the BTP in the capital should be merged with the Met to have one single police force for London, outside the square mile.

What do members feel is the advantage of maintaing a completely separate police force for the railways and what would be lost if that policing was transferred to the various local forces in which the railway runs?

BTP have different training than the civil police and are railway literate - they could be merged but there will have to be a separate railway division which is pointless realy.

 

[asylumxl]

I think the BTP is fine as it is. All that is really needed is more people on the ground.

 

[tjl599]

A Separate division in region police forces could in theory offer the same level of service as the BTP. However, the risk arises with budget pressures resulting to cuts in the railway policing department and resources being diverted to focus on the latest 'community' policing trend set by the government. This is very similar to the continuous cuts to road traffic police budgets that is often seen as the weak link in home office policing.

 

[SS4]

Strange isn't it how he wanted to absorb part of the BTP but not the City of London police who'd have been a more logical choice :roll:

I think the railways do need a separate police force because journeys, crimes and criminals cross jurisdictions and to only involve one force makes sense to me.

 

[PaulLothian]

It makes far more sense to have a separate BTP than to have a separate City of London Police force!

 

[IanXC]

Another consideration is that a separate force allows for the costs and accountability to be apportioned accurately. The TOCs can be much clearer about what they're paying for than, for instance, the Airports who probably don't have this kind of clarity and accountability.

 

[jopsuk]

The City of London force is unlikely to be merged with the Met unless revolution occurs and the anti-democratic City of London corporation is done away with. It is almost a private constabulary serving the only local council in the UK to allow businesses to vote and to have a special representative in the House of Commons.

 

[route:oxford]

Imagine what would happen if an incendent happened on a train just inside one police force area, but the train was heading out of that area and into another. Who would attend? would the second police force prioritise the incident as it wouldn't count to their clean up rates, etc..

There is just one regular police force in Scotland now...

The trouble would come when to fare evasion...

Can you imagine the average regular police officer being supportive over routing and starting long/stopping short on an advanced purchase?

 

[reb0118]

How about this shift in emphasis: Vastly increase the scope of the BTP to live up to their name as Transport Police and give them responsibility over ports & airports as well as the motorway network ~ you could throw in canals as well ~ as I don't know the last time that someone was done for cycling on the towpath without a permit from British Waterways.

 

[jimm]

How about this shift in emphasis: Vastly increase the scope of the BTP to live up to their name as Transport Police and give them responsibility over ports & airports as well as the motorway network ~ you could throw in canals as well ~ as I don't know the last time that someone was done for cycling on the towpath without a permit from British Waterways.

Until the mid-1980s BTP did indeed patrol a number of ports, but the docks board then withdrew funding, as did London Buses around the same time, resulting in the force going back to being a railway police (plus Underground/DLR/metros) outfit, which is where its roots in the 19th century lie.

 

[IanXC]

Until the mid-1980s BTP did indeed patrol a number of ports, but the docks board then withdrew funding, as did London Buses around the same time, resulting in the force going back to being a railway police (plus Undergrond/DLR/metros) outfit, which is where its roots in the 19th century lie.

Am I right in thinking the name stems from the British Transport Commission? Maybe its time to rename it the "British Railways Police".

 

[MacCookie]

How about this shift in emphasis: Vastly increase the scope of the BTP to live up to their name as Transport Police and give them responsibility over ports & airports as well as the motorway network ~ you could throw in canals as well ~ as I don't know the last time that someone was done for cycling on the towpath without a permit from British Waterways.

British Waterways no longer exists. Their canals are now looked after by the Canals and Rivers Trust and they don't require you to have a permit to cycle on them.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

It makes far more sense to have a separate BTP than to have a separate City of London Police force!

That's as maybe, but it is legally much more difficult to merge the Met and the City of London police.

 

[jimm]

Am I right in thinking the name stems from the British Transport Commission? Maybe its time to rename it the "British Railways Police".

But it covers Croydon Tramlink and the Glasgow Subway as well as railways...

 

[Eagle]

But it covers Croydon Tramlink and the Glasgow Subway as well as railways...

Last time I checked, the Glasgow Subway was a railway.

 

[dcsprior]

I can imagine that having the newly formed "Polis Scotland" take on the role the BTP currently carry out north of the border may be sensible - now there's a single territorial police force covering 32% of the UK (by area) which has its own laws made by its own government. Not to mention different ways of policing (e.g. no PCSOs) and one national transport agency and one national TOC with plus four inter-city operators running cross-border services.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

I think the railway should have their own Police.
If BTP had not been created, I bet today the railway would have its own security force of specially trained personnel.

The separate Police Forces across the country need to be better linked, as getting the cooperation between forces to catch criminals when they move around the country could be a lot better.

 

[Hellfire]

With the continuing drive to save money I think there will be ongoing pressure to create a completely national police force. I think the politicians are just seeing how things pan out in Scotland first.

There has been a history of police force mergers over the years, Cornwall and Devon used to have their own separate forces for instance and you also have cross county forces like Thames Valley and West Mercia.

If this ever happens I can't see how the BTP would avoid merging into a national force. There also used to be a Royal Parks Constabulary in London but that was absorbed into the Met in 2004.

 

[Lockwood]

And TVP and Hampshire Constabulary share firearms and RPU now.
And the new national air support...

I had a crazy thought a while back about combining Mersey Tunnel Police, BTP and the various motorway taskforces into one transport police.

 

[fgwrich]

And TVP and Hampshire Constabulary share firearms and RPU now.
And the new national air support...

I had a crazy thought a while back about combining Mersey Tunnel Police, BTP and the various motorway taskforces into one transport police.

And there's the both the Central Motorway Policing Group which is formed jointly of RPU Officers from West Midlands, West Mercia and Staffordshire Police as well as the North West Motorway Police Group - Cheshire, Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester RPUs.

I still personally remain uneasy about the idea of creating a single national Police Force, but i do agree with the idea of certain resources being shared between forces. Indeed another change happening down in the south this week was the saving of Dorset's MSU - Although now staff by Specials.

But in reality, i fail to see how abolishing the BTP would be a good idea. It is a unique force set up to specialize and service it's purpose in protecting and safeguarding the UK Rail network, with staff trained in Railway ways - rather than putting pressure on surrounding forces to create separate units and train up more officers and PCSOs.

 

[the sniper]

I had a crazy thought a while back about combining Mersey Tunnel Police, BTP and the various motorway taskforces into one transport police.

It's been talked about on and off, in various degrees of seriousness, since the motorways were first opened. Never happened though (either a nationwide motorway police force or BTP jurisdiction) and I doubt it ever will now, unless there is a nationwide force.

BTP moving into Airports seems to be something that appears more realistic and is still allegedly being talked about. It makes more sense as the Airports would pay for their policing in the same way the railways do.

On the City of London Police, BTP and them actually have a resource sharing/cost saving arrangement. Both being smallish forces they're looking to share some back office stuff.

 

[Hellfire]

I had a crazy thought a while back about combining Mersey Tunnel Police, BTP and the various motorway taskforces into one transport police.

I think that might cause some operational problems. While for administrative purposes officers are in RPUs they are still police officers and can get involved in other things too.

I think the danger of creating a separate transport police is that we could start heading down the road taken by America where you have a plethora of police forces like state police, local city police and county sherriffs all overlapping and, in some cases, arguing over jurisdiction.

 

[142094]

Every time I've been involved in an incident, BTP always seemed to be more proactive and interested in the situation compared to the local police, who normally probably think they have better things to deal with.

 

[Swirlz]

I would rather ATOC or "National Rail" took on a national role of Revenue Protection & Prosecutions.

Instead of each TOC doing their own thing in relation to ticket checks/penalties/prosecutions, a national revenue protection force - with a central processing office for prosecutions. The benefits of uniformity, consistency, central intelligence etc would be significant.

A national framework could be developed, in conjunction with BTP, which would hopefully improve the support BTP is supposed to provide. If the quality of TOC training was improved and standardized, BTP may not even be required as much in the first place.

ATOC could increase their TOC membership rates to fund the force, with existing RPIs etc TUPEd to the new force. It should be cost neutral, if not cost effective, as TOCs would not need to fund their own revenue protection operations.

It would also stop prosecutions that occur purely to generate cash - which is why my idea falls flat.

 

[badassunicorn]

What about say, MoD Police or the CNC?

 

[Flamingo]

I would rather ATOC or "National Rail" took on a national role of Revenue Protection & Prosecutions.

Instead of each TOC doing their own thing in relation to ticket checks/penalties/prosecutions, a national revenue protection force - with a central processing office for prosecutions. The benefits of uniformity, consistency, central intelligence etc would be significant.

A national framework could be developed, in conjunction with BTP, which would hopefully improve the support BTP is supposed to provide. If the quality of TOC training was improved and standardized, BTP may not even be required as much in the first place.

ATOC could increase their TOC membership rates to fund the force, with existing RPIs etc TUPEd to the new force. It should be cost neutral, if not cost effective, as TOCs would not need to fund their own revenue protection operations.

It would also stop prosecutions that occur purely to generate cash - which is why my idea falls flat.

BTP rarely prosecute ticket offences, these are already handled by the relevant TOC's. Indeed, we have instructions not to call BTP for ticket offences that can be dealt with by issuing a UFN.

BTP have a much bigger remit than tickets, and there are many more issues that occupy them across the rail network.

Prosecutions for ticket offences have nothing to do with generating cash. They are at best cost neutral, at worst cost more than is raised, and have more to do with deterrent than anything, I would guess.

 

[Swirlz]

Prosecutions for ticket offences have nothing to do with generating cash. They are at best cost neutral, at worst cost more than is raised, and have more to do with deterrent than anything, I would guess.

On the whole, that is correct, but one specific TOC is massively in profit as a result of their prosecution policy, to the point where it is more profitable to the company for people NOT to pay their fare.